When will this shit end?

[steviewevie]

My kid is doing mock exams at home this week. Bit weird.

[Ozanne]

Just now, Zoo Music Girl said:

I think I'm in the minority here that is feeling pretty positive with these announcements. I can see the end ahead of us and after the last few months personally I'm happy to go slowly to get there. 

I’m with you on this, so far from the leaks I feel they’re just about hitting the right tone. As you say we can see the end ahead of us and we’re getting closer every day. 

[steviewevie]

Just now, zahidf said:

So number 3.... that reads to me that if infections increasing doesn't lead to hospitalisation, they'll ignore it

yes, it's mostly about hospitalisations and deaths now (and risk of new variants)...a decrease in infections would be a bonus.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

I think I'm in the minority here that is feeling pretty positive with these announcements. I can see the end ahead of us and after the last few months personally I'm happy to go slowly to get there. 

you're in the silent majority.

[Mellotr0n]

31 minutes ago, Chapple12345 said:

I really don't think people are ready for just how drastically the situation is going to improve in the next 2 months, not complete normality but something more positive we havent seen in well over a year now 

Absolutely this. This lockdown has felt so long that we've gotten used to it. All logical readings of the vaccination data suggest things are going to be MILES better pretty darn soon.

[steviewevie]

Be interesting how CRG lot react to this...they wanted pubs open by Easter.

[JoeyT]

I remember there being an argument or 2 about this -

 

[DeanoL]

 

10 hours ago, gizmoman said:

The view that "vaccine refusers" should be punished by restricting their access to pubs etc. is quite popular on here, it's easy to call for discriminatory measures against a faceless group of people you violently disagree with but the reality is many of these people will be friends or family of you or your close contacts. The reality is this policy will impact everyone, even those who get the vaccine and are happy to get a passport. For example let's assume Glastonbury goes ahead next year with access to those with a vaccine passport only. Most people go in groups so lets say in a group of 6 one person isn't vaccinated and won't get one, that would change the dynamic of the group, what if it is your best mate who you normally hang around with? Are you happy to lose friends because you disagree with their views on this? I'm sure some of you would but even so it will have had an impact on you. 

I get your point, but for a lot of people it really isn't the case, especially I'd imagine the regulars on this thread.

I don't have any anti-vaxxer friends. Same as I don't have any friends who are Tory supporters (some vote Tory, out of admitted self-interest, but none that believe Boris is a brilliant PM).

I think that's partly why this thread is so long and popular: when I see my mates, we talk about all this sort of stuff- what's going on in the world, politics, the news, etc. I think this thread is filling that gap for a lot of people. Me included. But to have an interesting conversation there needs to be a shared understanding of the difference between facts and made-up nonsense. Otherwise it doesn't work. If you believe all my facts are made up by Bill Gates and I believe all your facts are made-up by conspiracy mooks on YouTube then there's no basis for any interesting conversation.

We can still disagree, and we do. Just like there are arguments on here over the best strategy for opening up. Just like we'd argue over how achievable Corbyn's policies were. Or if a Brexit referendum was a good idea. It's not an echo chamber. But if you can't even agree on what constitutes facts, I don't see how you can even have a conversation and therefore actually have a friendship? I guess you talk about football or something?

You can talk about art, music, film, but all that stuff has political parallels and commentary in it too...

For me it fundamentally doesn't work. Maybe that makes me narrow minded, but I don't think I'm alone in this. 

[JoeyT]

Boris the saviour 😂 joking aside this is very likely and will unfortunately win over a lot of people...

 

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

I remember there being an argument or 2 about this -

 

we've had one of the worst pandemics...but vaccine rollout success will probably change that perception massively.

[efcfanwirral]

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

I get your point, but for a lot of people it really isn't the case, especially I'd imagine the regulars on this thread.

I don't have any anti-vaxxer friends. Same as I don't have any friends who are Tory supporters (some vote Tory, out of admitted self-interest, but none that believe Boris is a brilliant PM).

I think that's partly why this thread is so long and popular: when I see my mates, we talk about all this sort of stuff- what's going on in the world, politics, the news, etc. I think this thread is filling that gap for a lot of people. Me included. But to have an interesting conversation there needs to be a shared understanding of the difference between facts and made-up nonsense. Otherwise it doesn't work. If you believe all my facts are made up by Bill Gates and I believe all your facts are made-up by conspiracy mooks on YouTube then there's no basis for any interesting conversation.

We can still disagree, and we do. Just like there are arguments on here over the best strategy for opening up. Just like we'd argue over how achievable Corbyn's policies were. Or if a Brexit referendum was a good idea. It's not an echo chamber. But if you can't even agree on what constitutes facts, I don't see how you can even have a conversation and therefore actually have a friendship? I guess you talk about football or something?

You can talk about art, music, film, but all that stuff has political parallels and commentary in it too...

For me it fundamentally doesn't work. Maybe that makes me narrow minded, but I don't think I'm alone in this. 

Fair enough on the vaccine thing because its so important to getting people's lives and livelihoods back- but imagine a world where nobody ever questioned anything. Going into thought police territory - there will be plenty of cases where things were put out there as indisputable facts that turned out to be anything but - WMDs in Iraq for example was a "conspiracy theory" until it wasn't. Now its used as one of the reasons to justify an endles Tory government 

Like i said not an anti vaxx argument but where does the line get drawn? 

Edited February 22, 2021 by efcfanwirral

[hodgey123]

29 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

I’m just worried I’m going to become a bloody huge lockdown sceptic in the following weeks 😕 

I'm feeling this too, particularly as I have been such a massive critic of the government to friends and family throughout. Feel hypocritical!

[Homer]

It's boring innit, staying in waiting for pandemic updates with your life...

[northernringo]

They've announced that our largest indoor music venue is going to be used in NI for vaccinations once we get past the 60+ category. That should speed things up here a lot (we are lagging behind slightly).

Hopefully as restrictions loosen and the subject's risk level decreases, we can reduce the level of distancing required in vaccine centres too and get more people through the doors.

[Zoo Music Girl]

12 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

 

I get your point, but for a lot of people it really isn't the case, especially I'd imagine the regulars on this thread.

I don't have any anti-vaxxer friends. Same as I don't have any friends who are Tory supporters (some vote Tory, out of admitted self-interest, but none that believe Boris is a brilliant PM).

I think that's partly why this thread is so long and popular: when I see my mates, we talk about all this sort of stuff- what's going on in the world, politics, the news, etc. I think this thread is filling that gap for a lot of people. Me included. But to have an interesting conversation there needs to be a shared understanding of the difference between facts and made-up nonsense. Otherwise it doesn't work. If you believe all my facts are made up by Bill Gates and I believe all your facts are made-up by conspiracy mooks on YouTube then there's no basis for any interesting conversation.

We can still disagree, and we do. Just like there are arguments on here over the best strategy for opening up. Just like we'd argue over how achievable Corbyn's policies were. Or if a Brexit referendum was a good idea. It's not an echo chamber. But if you can't even agree on what constitutes facts, I don't see how you can even have a conversation and therefore actually have a friendship? I guess you talk about football or something?

You can talk about art, music, film, but all that stuff has political parallels and commentary in it too...

For me it fundamentally doesn't work. Maybe that makes me narrow minded, but I don't think I'm alone in this. 

Nah I don't have any friends who are anti-vaxxers and no family as far as I know (none that I'm arsed about seeing). It will be a non issue in my social life thankfully.

[gizmoman]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

The four conditions that must be met at each phase of lockdown easing are:

1. The coronavirus vaccine programme continues to go to plan
2. Evidence shows vaccines are sufficiently reducing the number of people dying with the virus or needing hospital treatment
3. Infection rates do not risk a surge in hospital admissions
4. New variants of the virus do not fundamentally change the risk of lifting restrictions

1. The coronavirus vaccine programme continues to go to plan

As i posted earlier it seems this is the number one priority, so it might be worth asking what the plan is.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-uptake-plan/uk-covid-19-vaccine-uptake-plan

"High vaccine uptake is vital to the success of the vaccine programme in helping us defeat COVID-19. Without high uptake across our communities, our lives, and those of our loved ones, will remain at high risk from this devastating virus."

They don't give any figure as to what would be an acceptable uptake so it will be difficult to judge whether the programme is continuing to go to plan or not. Are people going to accept restrictions if hospitalisations and deaths are low in order to convince anti-vaxxers to get the jab?  Will anti-vaxxers be likely to change their minds by being "blackmailed" into taking the vaccine?

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, northernringo said:

They've announced that our largest indoor music venue is going to be used in NI for vaccinations once we get past the 60+ category. That should speed things up here a lot (we are lagging behind slightly).

Hopefully as restrictions loosen and the subject's risk level decreases, we can reduce the level of distancing required in vaccine centres too and get more people through the doors.

does NI have an equivalent roadmap out of lockdown?

[Glastoboy]

I just can't see the sense in sending all the kids back to school & college on 8th March. That age group is currently the most prone to catching the virus. Why send them back for just two weeks before breaking up for Easter? It seems like asking for trouble and possibly undoing all the good work of this lockdown.

Why not keep them away from each other for two more weeks (plus the Easter holidays) and then open EVERYTHING back up at the end of Easter?

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

1. The coronavirus vaccine programme continues to go to plan

As i posted earlier it seems this is the number one priority, so it might be worth asking what the plan is.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-uptake-plan/uk-covid-19-vaccine-uptake-plan

"High vaccine uptake is vital to the success of the vaccine programme in helping us defeat COVID-19. Without high uptake across our communities, our lives, and those of our loved ones, will remain at high risk from this devastating virus."

They don't give any figure as to what would be an acceptable uptake so it will be difficult to judge whether the programme is continuing to go to plan or not. Are people going to accept restrictions if hospitalisations and deaths are low in order to convince anti-vaxxers to get the jab?  Will anti-vaxxers be likely to change their minds by being "blackmailed" into taking the vaccine?

They said last year that they are hoping for 75% vaccination for an impact.

It's not blackmail. If you want to do certain things (which aren't essential) then take a vaccine.

[zahidf]

Just now, Glastoboy said:

I just can't see the sense in sending all the kids back to school & college on 8th March. That age group is currently the most prone to catching the virus. Why send them back for just two weeks before breaking up for Easter? It seems like asking for trouble and possibly undoing all the good work of this lockdown.

Why not keep them away from each other for two more weeks (plus the Easter holidays) and then open EVERYTHING back up at the end of Easter?

Yeah I agree. Open up more things after easterr holidays.

[st dan]

1 minute ago, Glastoboy said:

I just can't see the sense in sending all the kids back to school & college on 8th March. That age group is currently the most prone to catching the virus. Why send them back for just two weeks before breaking up for Easter? It seems like asking for trouble and possibly undoing all the good work of this lockdown.

Why not keep them away from each other for two more weeks (plus the Easter holidays) and then open EVERYTHING back up at the end of Easter?

I agree with you and would have liked to have seen that approach too, but I think they are essentially using the 2 weeks the schools are open to assess the impact at the end of the 2 week Easter break. I guess the only meaningful data we will get from that is number of positive cases, but if they don’t spike too high then I think they’ll be happy. 

[zahidf]

0

 

[efcfanwirral]

 

2 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

1. The coronavirus vaccine programme continues to go to plan

As i posted earlier it seems this is the number one priority, so it might be worth asking what the plan is.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccination-uptake-plan/uk-covid-19-vaccine-uptake-plan

"High vaccine uptake is vital to the success of the vaccine programme in helping us defeat COVID-19. Without high uptake across our communities, our lives, and those of our loved ones, will remain at high risk from this devastating virus."

They don't give any figure as to what would be an acceptable uptake so it will be difficult to judge whether the programme is continuing to go to plan or not. Are people going to accept restrictions if hospitalisations and deaths are low in order to convince anti-vaxxers to get the jab?  Will anti-vaxxers be likely to change their minds by being "blackmailed" into taking the vaccine?

I get you and I'm with you but people just need to take the vaccine whatever their thoughts on it. I'd see it as a win if we get past this without domestic vaccine passes- that's our choices now - and imagine if somehow uptake is good enough to not need them?

I'm taking the vaccine but I have no intention of actually using a vaccine passport domestically unless it's for the supermarket. So i have a huge personal interest in them not being implemented as my own self imposed restrictions would continue long after this 

[DeanoL]

There's interesting stuff going on here. I think there's correct arguments on both sides too. This absolutely is suggesting a change in policy by the government. They genuinely are moving the goal posts, but I also think that's the right thing to do.

Throughout all this we've harped on about "protect the NHS" and "make sure the NHS isn't overwhelmed", and we've considered that to be a binary thing: NHS not overwhelmed means they can treat everyone who needs COVID treatment and don't have leave anyone to die. We've just about done that. And it seems to me, that's been the express policy of the government: to "just about" do that. That the NHS should be running at 96-99% capacity at all times, and if things start to drop to 95% or lower, then we can open stuff up again, until it gets scarily close to 99%, then we shut stuff again. It's not a bad policy, per-se. It means we constantly have the lowest level of restrictions we can get away with at any time. Plenty on here are in favour of that, and it makes sense, really.

The problem with it is, as we've seen, it's very susceptible to anything new that changes things. More transmissible variants, test and trace not being effective enough, people ignoring lockdown restrictions, etc. When these things happen, you have to jump right on to tightening restrictions because there's nothing to play with. You are at 95% capacity in the NHS, you see a new strain and the models say it might push you to 101% capacity in a few weeks then you need a new lockdown *right now*. You can't wait and see. Because in a week it'll be too late and people will be dying in homes because there's no room to treat them in hospitals, or doctors will have to choose who lives and dies based on who they treat.

NHS capacity is crucial here, as it acts as a safety valve. It does that all the time. When the pandemic first hit the reason we were able to faff around for a month is that we had the space in hospitals to treat people. That space is always sort of there, for any public health emergency - be it a massive road traffic accident, flooding, flu outbreak, tainted food or water... all these are potential risks we could face every day, which is why the NHS is designed to have the capacity to deal with them if they happen.

Right now, we don't have that. Any of the above could be a disaster right now as we are right at that cliff edge. And it's tempting, it's really tempting to say "let's stay there, and then we can go to the pub". 

This slower approach to opening up, coupled with the vaccine, means we finally take a step back from the edge. And it'll take a while. Because there's a couple of months lag baked into it (as people hospitalised with COVID are often in hospital for 1-2 months). But numbers should start coming down. And we need to actually let them come down. 

And if you do that, you get to a point where capacity is more like 60%, and then you can *actually start taking risks*. Say another new variant is discovered, that it looks like the vaccine is less effective against. Shit. But what is our hospital occupation rate? 95%, because we've opened everything up quickly to keep it there? Then we need to go right into lockdown as we can't risk it going about 100%. But what if it's 60%? Well then we can wait and see. If, over the next couple of weeks it goes up to 70% then that's not good, we need some new restrictions in place. But if it doesn't if it's just a false alarm, it's fine.

TLDR: opening up as much as you can as soon as you can means you'll always be susceptible to changing circumstances, and the need to act immediately. Keeping restrictions in place a little bit longer means hospital numbers fall, and the spare beds mean you can take more risks in the future. 

Those arguing that we shouldn't be in lockdown "just in case" are completely right. But it's extending the current lockdown enough to get numbers down that will stop us having to lockdown again "just in case" every single time we detect something new.

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Glastoboy said:

I just can't see the sense in sending all the kids back to school & college on 8th March. That age group is currently the most prone to catching the virus. Why send them back for just two weeks before breaking up for Easter? It seems like asking for trouble and possibly undoing all the good work of this lockdown.

Why not keep them away from each other for two more weeks (plus the Easter holidays) and then open EVERYTHING back up at the end of Easter?

cause they've already missed so much school and they and their parents are going fuckin crazy.